The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This is an odd case: it had previously been passed and then promoted for a December 25 run, but was pulled from the main page at 13:02 UTC after having been on the main page for over 13 hours. Under the circumstances, having such an extensive run (more than nominations running when we're promoting two sets per day), this is being closed since it really shouldn't have been reopened, and currently has issues that persist. The original creator was a college student who hasn't edited in a month and a half, and whose class ended over two weeks ago.
Overall: Article is new enough and long enough, is neutral and is plagiarism free. Hook is cited and interesting. QPQ is done. However, in terms of sourcing - the majority of those mentioned seem to be primary sources from the Church Missionary Society (which I can't access), and one secondary source Europeans in East Africa (which is about her husband). I'm concerned that although the article is well-written and detailed, it depends too much on primary material which does not necessarily establish her own notability. (I am loathe to say this, as most of the pages I start are for women!) I think to approve it, I'd need to hear which of the Church Missionary Society sources contribute to her notability, not just background to her life. Also, the page needs to be de-orphaned, there's two citations missing, the quotes need attributions, and it needs some categories adding. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore: While I looked over the article and am confident of two independent sources for GNG, I don't have any knowledge of the sources you ask about. The article is a WikiEd product that the student is still working on, and I don't want to mess with their "work" until their class is over. It is a stupid system, but at least we have a well-written article in this case. I, separately, don't think being an orphan or uncategorised is a barrier to DYK. But if there are outstanding issues, I probably can't address them. Happy for this to be closed if that's the case, and I'll either find another article to nom or ask to use another of mine for the Christmas set. Kingsif (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kingsif - which were the two sources you'd identifed for GNG? (In hope I can change my mind!) I just looked at the toolkit the new editors are given, and they don't get told about article categories or de-orphaning, so I can see better why that's not been done. The course page says the final week ended 10 December, so I think we can help and it be OK - @Helaine (Wiki Ed):, @Brianda (Wiki Ed):, @Ian (Wiki Ed):, @Breamk: what do you think? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore: In this edit I note which sources I thought fit, but also that the urls are all student-user log-ins, and are time-restricted. Needs work, there, too. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif I can now approve the hook - Laurosull explained (on the talk page & on her usertalk) that three of the sources supported notability, so I am much more confident in the sourcing of the article now. Good to go. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Reopened due to incomplete sourcing and notability concerns.[1]Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I have given it a very thorough copyedit. The only outstanding issue is the same thing I mentioned the first time, @Lauraosull:; that many of the refs point to urls that are student-login blocked (i.e. if you used school access and just copied the url, nobody else can see it). Is it possible for you to re-access the sources and change the refs to have general bibliographic detail (how you would cite it in a term paper) - preferably including page numbers where the sources are long or detailed. Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Kingsif, Lauraosull has not edited since December 23; the assignment was over at that point, and the class ended on January 23. At this point, I think we have to assume that there's nothing more coming from that corner. If the nomination cannot proceed without Lauraosull's further participation, I think it will have to be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kingsif, I just checked the history here, and when Gatoclass pulled the hook on December 25, it had already been on the main page for over 13 hours. If it had been a few hours, that would have been one thing, but it had more time on the main page than every hook that's run on a two-set-per-day schedule. It had its time, and shouldn't expect to get any more. I'm closing this immediately. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough, is neutral and is plagiarism free. Hook is cited and interesting. QPQ is done. However, in terms of sourcing - the majority of those mentioned seem to be primary sources from the Church Missionary Society (which I can't access), and one secondary source Europeans in East Africa (which is about her husband). I'm concerned that although the article is well-written and detailed, it depends too much on primary material which does not necessarily establish her own notability. (I am loathe to say this, as most of the pages I start are for women!) I think to approve it, I'd need to hear which of the Church Missionary Society sources contribute to her notability, not just background to her life. Also, the page needs to be de-orphaned, there's two citations missing, the quotes need attributions, and it needs some categories adding. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Reopened due to incomplete sourcing and notability concerns.[1] Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)